Abstract
The present article tries to demostrate that the recent suggestion made by J. Meischner about the missorium of Theodosius from de Royal Academy of History in Madrid, in the sense that it is an object representing not Theodosius I (traditional identification) but Theodosius II, and therefore, a product from the Court of Ravenna, made in the year 421, is unnaceptable and unconvincing. The new proposal does not solve the different problems raised by the iconographic, epigraphic, and historical context of the object. One of them, and the most important, is the mention in the missorium of the decennalia of the emperor, that should correspond necessarially to the one celebrated for Theodosius I in the year 388 and not for Theodosius II. Should be this the case then, the inscription will celebrate 10 years later, the decennalia that we know for certain that took place in the year 411 as attested in the Chronica of Marcellinus. Some other observations, historical and iconographical, assure that the traditional identification of Theodosius I in the missorium , should be maintained. Theodosius the first continues being Theodosius I.
Highlights
The present article tries to demostrate that the recent suggestion made by J
The new proposal does not solve the different problems raised by the iconographie, epigraphic, and historical context of the object
The most important, is the mention in the missorium of the decemtalia of the emperor, that should correspond necessarially to the one celebrated for Theodosius I in the year 388 and not for Theodosius II
Summary
El presente artículo trata de demostrar que la reciente propuesta de J. Meischner sobre el missorium de Teodosio de la Real Academia de la Historia de Madrid, en el sentido de que se trata de un objeto representando no a Teodosio I (identificación tradicional) sino a Teodosio II, y que por tanto es un producto de la Corte de Rávena del año 421, es insostenible e indemostrable. Meischner no resuelve los diversos problemas que plantean todos los elementos iconográficos, epigráficos, históricos y de contexto que presenta el missorium. No encuentra sólida explicación científica al hecho de que el missorium recordaba las decennalia del emperador lo que necesariamente sólo puede corresponder a las de Teodosio I celebradas el año 388. Una serie de observaciones de tipo iconográfico y de tipo histórico complementan y fundamentan la teoría de que el missorium de Teodosio I sigue siendo de Teodosio I
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
